× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Horrendous mixed-age couple scenario, please help

 1 2 3 > 

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3211

Joined: 7 January 2016

Hi folks, we’ve received an enquiry in relation to a mixed-age couple and it’s looking to me like they’re going to lose more than £40 a week once the wife reaches state pension age. I’ve spent a long time trying to work through this and can’t see any obvious way around the loss but wanted to check I’m not missing anything obvious (always a possibility)

Current entitlement

Wife – Disability Living Allowance (DLA) High rate mobility component £59.75 a week (disregarded)
DLA High rate care component £85.60 a week (disregarded)
Carer’s Allowance (CA) £64.60 a week (taken fully into account as income)
Housing Benefit £80 a week
Income –based Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) – see below

Husband – Personal Independence Payment Standard rate daily living element £57.30 a week (disregarded)
CA - £64.60 a week (taken fully into account as income)

Son – Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, no other benefits in payment

ESA entitlement weekly
• Personal allowance £114.85 couple rate
• Support component £37.65
• Carer element £36.00
• Carer element £36.00
• Enhanced disability premium £23.55
• Total applicable amount - £248.05
• Lees income ££129.20 (two times CA)
• ESA payable £118.85 a week

This should passport them to full Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support,but there are minor differences in what’s actually in payment but not bothered about these for now.

State Pension age entitlement – Once client reaches State Pension age (SPa) on 6 July 2019, her ESA claim must stop as this cannot be paid past SPa. It looks to me from article 6(2)(b) of the Commencement Order bringing in the mixed-age couples changes that this also means that the HB claim also closes as this prevents a claim for pension-age HB from taking place. Because they both claim CA for each other, as well as the fact of the son living with them as a non-dependant, they are not entitled to a Severe Disability Premium with either the ESA claim or the HB claim, their only choice at this point is to claim Universal Credit (UC) instead.

I’ve attached a calculation for their provisional UC entitlement which appears to me on the face of it to be correct. On these figures, I estimate they will be approximately £43 a week worse off (the figures are slightly inaccurate as the ESA calculation above is for 2018/19 amounts whereas the UC calculation is for 2019/20 amounts).

Remedies – I did wonder whether they should consider giving up the two CA awards as that would raise the possibility of a double Severe Disability Premium (SDP) then being included in the ESA claim, which in turn would currently prevent them making a UC claim. However, the fact of the son living with them as a non-dependant means that they cannot get any SDP as things stand. In order for the son not to be counted as a non-dependant, he would need to establish an award for PIP daily living component in his own right.

The other option that I considered was whether the husband might become the HB claimant but I cannot see that is going to work either. When the wife reaches 65, her ESA claim must stop which also means the HB claim should switch to pension-age HB, except that article 6(2)(b0) prevents that happening and so any HB claim would also stop, regardless of which person was the claimant. The husband cannot now establish an entitlement in his own right to ESA because UC is fully rolled out and the husband having entitlement to ESA is the only way that the HB award could continue in payment past the wife reaching SPa.

Any thoughts? Any ideas for what they could do here? I can’t see any way around this.

[ Edited: 29 Mar 2019 at 11:01 am by Paul_Treloar_AgeUK ]

File Attachments

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2908

Joined: 12 March 2013

UC should include one carer element I think?  The same individual cannot generate both LCWRA and carer element, but the LCWRA element is awarded in respect of the wife while the husband can attract the carer element.  See UC Reg 29(4).

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 451

Joined: 18 October 2013

Could the son move out for long enough for them to get 2 x SDP and sort out their claims then return?

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3211

Joined: 7 January 2016

HB Anorak - 29 March 2019 11:26 AM

UC should include one carer element I think?  The same individual cannot generate both LCWRA and carer element, but the LCWRA element is awarded in respect of the wife while the husband can attract the carer element.  See UC Reg 29(4).

Thanks, well spotted. I’ll have to go away and recalculate but that could even things up. I make it there’s now an approximate £23 \p/w shortfall. Thanks so much again, at least this isn’t as bad as I first feared.

[ Edited: 5 Apr 2019 at 10:36 pm by Paul_Treloar_AgeUK ]
Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3211

Joined: 7 January 2016

unhindered by talent - 29 March 2019 11:52 AM

Could the son move out for long enough for them to get 2 x SDP and sort out their claims then return?

Don’t think so but even if he did, then they’d lose SDP as soon as he came back and so we’d be back to square one wouldn’t we? My head hurts.

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 451

Joined: 18 October 2013

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 29 March 2019 12:01 PM
unhindered by talent - 29 March 2019 11:52 AM

Could the son move out for long enough for them to get 2 x SDP and sort out their claims then return?

Don’t think so but even if he did, then they’d lose SDP as soon as he came back and so we’d be back to square one wouldn’t we? My head hurts.

Mine too :-( Yes they would lose SDP when he returned but if they’d managed to claim PC while SDP’s were in place and got HB in place, they could lose the SDPs and return to CA for him and underlying entitlement to CA for her? It’s probably too complicated to work but if you apply the carer element to the UC claim as HB says,  their loss isn’t so bad.

 

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2908

Joined: 12 March 2013

Another thing just occurred to me.  The calculation shows no housing costs contribution, but there should be unless the son is under 21 or his IIDB includes a PIP-equivalent supplement

DOH! sorry, ignore me.  Claimant on PIP/DLA, no HCC

Actually, come to think of it, does he have an attendance supplement in his IIDB?  Because if has that will enable the SDP to be paid

[ Edited: 29 Mar 2019 at 12:09 pm by HB Anorak ]
Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3211

Joined: 7 January 2016

HB Anorak - 29 March 2019 12:06 PM

Another thing just occurred to me.  The calculation shows no housing costs contribution, but there should be unless the son is under 21 or his IIDB includes a PIP-equivalent supplement

DOH! sorry, ignore me.  Claimant on PIP/DLA, no HCC

Yep, that got me first time around too.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3211

Joined: 7 January 2016

HB Anorak - 29 March 2019 12:06 PM

Another thing just occurred to me.  The calculation shows no housing costs contribution, but there should be unless the son is under 21 or his IIDB includes a PIP-equivalent supplement

DOH! sorry, ignore me.  Claimant on PIP/DLA, no HCC

Actually, come to think of it, does he have an attendance supplement in his IIDB?  Because if has that will enable the SDP to be paid

Don’t think so but I’ll check for sure.

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1659

Joined: 18 June 2010

I have spoken to PC about a ‘mixed age’ couple case this morning (previously on PC&HB; - wrongly advised to claim UC when became responsible for a child - UC claim now successfully withdrawn -PC back in payt apart from child addition). It appears PC now have a special team(s) dealing with child dependants and ‘mixed age’ couple cases. There person I spoke to volunteered the opinion that the May changes will be a nightmare for them to deal with!

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1125

Joined: 25 February 2014

I thought the normal 3 month backdating rule was going to apply, even with the new rules for mixed age couples from 15/5/2019? So she could make a PC claim on 19/7/2019 if she wished…..

Philippa D
forum member

Weymouth & Portland Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 123

Joined: 2 January 2018

Backdating route only works if you backdate a claim to before 15/5/19. Claim is treated as being made before 15/5/19 so is allowed. Not possible in this case as clt doesn’t reach PC age until after 15/5/19, even with max backdating claim cannot be treated as having been made before 15/5/19 because she’s not eligible before 15/5/19.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3211

Joined: 7 January 2016

Yes, in order to get three-months backdating, you’ve got to have an actual entitlement to PC and/or HB on 14.05.19.

This client has missed out on the deadline by a matter of days, her partner is 55 years old so they’re getting hammered for the next 10-11 years.

Imagine that, you finally reach retirement age and this government of rich public school boys and girls have decided they’ll actively make sure you’re in penury for a good few years more.

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

Peter Turville - 29 March 2019 12:55 PM

I have spoken to PC about a ‘mixed age’ couple case this morning (previously on PC&HB; - wrongly advised to claim UC when became responsible for a child - UC claim now successfully withdrawn -PC back in payt apart from child addition). I

but this son has IIDB, so is, one has to assume, an adult (injured at work)

WROTricia
forum member

Advice Works, Renfrewshire

Send message

Total Posts: 103

Joined: 4 February 2016

HB Anorak - 29 March 2019 11:26 AM

UC should include one carer element I think?  The same individual cannot generate both LCWRA and carer element, but the LCWRA element is awarded in respect of the wife while the husband can attract the carer element.  See UC Reg 29(4).

Sorry if this is an easy look up but I wanted to check I wasn’t misunderstanding this - the wife is reaching pension age and a LCWRA element can be included in a UC award in relation to her? Does that mean pensioners in mixed-age UC couples are subject to WCA?

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3211

Joined: 7 January 2016

WROTricia - 29 March 2019 03:11 PM
HB Anorak - 29 March 2019 11:26 AM

UC should include one carer element I think?  The same individual cannot generate both LCWRA and carer element, but the LCWRA element is awarded in respect of the wife while the husband can attract the carer element.  See UC Reg 29(4).

Sorry if this is an easy look up but I wanted to check I wasn’t misunderstanding this - the wife is reaching pension age and a LCWRA element can be included in a UC award in relation to her? Does that mean pensioners in mixed-age UC couples are subject to WCA?

para.5 of sch.9 of the UC regs allows people over SPA who receive AA, DLA HRC or PIP EDL to be awarded LCWRA element in a UC award.

Otherwise, yes pensioners will need to do a WCA to establish entitlement.